DescentBB

Just wondering, how does the Chronicals Of Riddick Unrated compare to the normal PG-13 in the area of gore?


I wanted to find the PG-13 in widescreen but it seems I can't. I went ahead and bought the Unrated version for that but if it is too gory I may take it back since I was hoping to show it to my buddy but he doesn't like a lot of gore. If it is too gory I may just take it back to the store and pick up the LOST season 1 DVD set and wait on Chronicals until I can find the rated version. What sucks is that it appears that the PG-13 only sells in fullscreen.

I am not found of over gorey movies either, but thought this was a great flick with below average gore but alot of action.

"The unrated director's cut of The Chronicles of Riddick adds about 15 minutes of action, sex, and even exposition. There's a new introduction for Kyra, three scenes of a character (Shira, played by Kristin Lehman) who was removed entirely from the theatrical cut, a couple of more sexual scenes (but no nudity), more interplay between Riddick and the Lord Marshal and between Vaako and Lady Vaako, and a more striking ending."

- Amazon reviewer

Actually as one of the few fans of Riddick I've seen both a couple times each. In terms of gore there's not much added. Unrated is usually taken to mean "worse than R" but that certainly isn't the case here. It's just some added footage, most of it exposition that slows down the pace of the flick. In fact, the exposition was initially included because Riddick was a planned trilogy, and since C2 and C3 will never be made, the extra scenes are doubly worthless. Get the theatrical version if you can.

Thanks for the advice guys. I ended up trading it for the Lost season 1 DVD collection. I'll wait until I can get the theatrical version of Chronicals.

BigSlideHimself wrote:...Riddick was a planned trilogy, and since C2 and C3 will never be made...

Why is that?